Miscellaneous News

Eventine said:

Right, this is my take as well, I don't see this as an existential defeat for China, because MAD isn't the same as invincibility (unless you're the one without nukes). Between nuclear powers, ironically conventional hard power (military, industrial, etc.) becomes more important in competitive parity. The only thing that is being denied by MAD is total defeat and the ability to inflict it (by either Japan or China).

At least, until ABM capabilities improve. And I expect, in a world where nukes are more widely available, that will become the main determinant of whether you can maintain MAD or not, and will in a sense become the new criteria for MAD.

Click to expand...

Also, people are assuming MAD whenever a country has nukes. That's not true. North Korea/Pakistan does not have MAD with Russia or the US. The size of your country, the size of the nuclear fleet, and technological level/fleet size of interceptors will still create a power dynamic. A small country with few nukes may be able to shoot off a couple of middle finger nukes and maybe 1 or 2 will hit, causing some damage to a target superpower but the nuclear retaliation from that superpower will be fatal for the smaller nation.

I am the very last guy to endorse nuclear weapons for Japan... unless China delivers them of course, but the trend is that tech only steps forward, not backward. If a nation is intent on obtaining a technology, it will eventually get it, unless it were destroyed before then. So to paint a nuclear armed Japan as a doomsday for China is simply barking up the wrong tree. Of course we should oppose it but, we should also realize that our options are limited. What we should focus on is something that would make our enemies' options limited in dealing with us rather than our options limited in dealing with them, and that is innovating tech to intercept/disrupt nuclear weapons and creating weapons that are game-changingly more destructive and devastating than the nukes that our enemies employ. Make it so that by the time Japan gets nukes, if it ever does, there is no point and they are outclassed again.

manqiangrexue said:

Also, people are assuming MAD whenever a country has nukes. That's not true. North Korea/Pakistan does not have MAD with Russia or the US. The size of your country, the size of the nuclear fleet, and technological level/fleet size of interceptors will still create a power dynamic. A small country with few nukes may be able to shoot off a couple of middle finger nukes and maybe 1 or 2 will hit, causing some damage to a target superpower but the nuclear retaliation from that superpower will be fatal for the smaller nation.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. People oversimplify the nature of having or not having nukes. There is still an overall power dynamic/difference that nukes are just 1 part of. Sure, it guarantees China would never want to directly bomb, invade, or occupy Tokyo city itself, but will Tokyo risk nuclear holocaust over its disputed ownership of Okinawa, Diaoyudao, Dokdo, and any other of the non-main islands, etc? Even Hokkaido? Absolutely not. Salami slicing is a two way street, but it always favors the stronger local power with more bandwidth, more capabilities, etc. I could easily see China coordinating against Japan with South Korea and Russia such that Hokkaido goes to Russia, South Korean control of Dokdo firms up, Okinawa becomes an independent country or Chinese SAR, and the rest of the small non-main islands become Chinese.

I mean we just saw India and Pakistan fight last year. Both of them have nukes. Yet they still used conventional stuff.

CMP said:

You don't understand. Canadian special forces are so highly trained that they can shoot down incoming missiles, fighter jets, and bombers using bolt action hunting rifles. Those arrogant Americans won't know what hit them. It'll be like Iraq+Afghanistan times 100. Canadians have way more military training, grit, and tenacity than anyone in the world. They can survive off the land by eating snow, and hiding in forests. American satellite constellations cannot monitor them since they've lived among the snow and trees so long that they blend in perfectly.

Click to expand...

You’re forgetting their favorite line: “You think we Canadians are weak? There is an entire section in the Geneva Convention because of what we did when we got mad”.

Poor Canuck Cucks will fold faster than Superman on laundry day the very second the US even looks in their direction.

tokenanalyst said:

Forget it, The US has to be brain death retarded to leave a nuke in ANY country that they don't have strong military presence and the device is safeguarded by them. Nobody knows if the US and Japan are always going be friendly to each other or if Japan in the future would be friendly to China against US interests, nobody knows that. That is a too high of a risk for any country, to leave a weapon of such caliber behind. No even Israel get that luxury. If Japan want nukes will have to do it the old way, they will have to design a device, test it and deal with all the internal and external backslash that will come with that.

Click to expand...

By that argument, why did China provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan? Surely the goal was to contain/constrain India, but Pakistan being an US ally is not guaranteed to always be friendly to China. The same goes for the aid Russia provided to India.

In these kinds of situations, we can't assume the purpose is always to better enforce one's own will. In many cases, it is to create chaos for opponents. If the US is confident that Japan will create trouble for China and place constraints on China's ability to dominate the Pacific, then giving nukes to Japan makes perfect sense. Sure, Japan won't always be friendly to the US, but if the goal is to weaken China's regional hegemony, then it is beneficial regardless.

delfer said:

You’re forgetting their favorite line: “You think we Canadians are weak? There is a whole section in the Geneva Convention because of us”.

They’ll fold faster than Superman on laundry day the very second the US even looks in their direction.

Click to expand...

China’s movie industry can do the funniest thing right now by announcing that it’s making a ‘Red, White and Blue Dawn’ movie starting filming in Canada immediately. If they are lucky, they can save a ton on special effects by just filming the American invasion. Although would that make their film a documentary?

Eventine said:

By that argument, why did China provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan? Surely the goal was to contain/constrain India, but Pakistan being an US ally is not guaranteed to always be friendly to China. The same goes for the aid Russia provided to India.

In these kinds of situations, we can't assume the purpose is always to better enforce one's own will. In many cases, it is to create chaos for opponents. If the US is confident that Japan will create trouble for China and place constraints on China's ability to dominate the Pacific, then giving nukes to Japan makes perfect sense. Sure, Japan won't always be friendly to the US, but if the goal is to weaken China's regional hegemony, then it is beneficial regardless.

Click to expand...

Again, even if it happened, it would just take us back to step 1 of this conversation. China would be deterred from directly invading, occupying, or bombing Tokyo, but there would still be an overall industrial, economic, trade, and power dynamic that allows China to squeeze Japan until it collapses fiscally, politically, economically, industrially, through hacking, etc. Lastly, just like America worked to try and break off Chinese territories even though China has nuclear weapons, China can do the same to Japan. And just like China would never nuke the US over HK/Xinjiang/Tibet being broken off, neither would Japan do that over Hokkaido, Senkaku, Okinawa, etc. In short, Japan can pursue whatever policy it likes regarding nukes, but it'll just be buying an entry pass into a whole new world of other categories of vulnerability it was never subject to in the past.

Eventine said:

By that argument, why did China provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan? Surely the goal was to contain/constrain India, but Pakistan being an US ally is not guaranteed to always be friendly to China. The same goes for the aid Russia provided to India.

In these kinds of situations, we can't assume the purpose is always to better enforce one's own will. In many cases, it is to create chaos for opponents. If the US is confident that Japan will create trouble for China and place constraints on China's ability to dominate the Pacific, then giving nukes to Japan makes perfect sense. Sure, Japan won't always be friendly to the US, but if the goal is to weaken China's regional hegemony, then it is beneficial regardless.

Click to expand...

I don't think China give a functional nuclear device to Pakistan, enriched uranium? maybe. But given that China didn't have enough back them, I doubt it . Most of Pakistan nuclear capabilities come more from espionage than from China. Pakistan designed and TESTED their nuclear warhead on their own with all the backlash they received back then.

plawolf said:

Didn’t Castro Jr already confiscate all the remotely militarily useful guns in Canada? All you lot have left are bolt action hunting rifles. Canadian civilians wouldn’t even be able to fight off a WWI America army with the pathetic selections of weapons their sell out government allows them to own.

Click to expand...

We still have the SKS which they can't ban because the First Nations will say no.

The old way.